Thread 718462956

Portal question: The answer

>>718462956 (OP)
In this picture the other portal has a negative relative velocity with the starting portal such that their summed velocity cancels out.

in english, doc

>>718463018
>picture
wrong therefor I'm right

>>718462956 (OP)
now put the stone in your hand and quickly lift it trough the hole and then instantly stop

>>718462956 (OP)
>Afags trying this hard to prove they're retarded

>>718463147
>if I say do a different thing then what's questioned that makes me right

>>718462956 (OP)
wrong
gravity exists

>>718462956 (OP)
This is and remains a strawman, Afags are incapable of thinking with portals and will always reach for faulty examples.

>>718462956 (OP)
Yes, this is exactly what B suggests would happen if you were to move both portals like that.

Not sure what A suggests because it doesn't have a consistent model but I think the stone should implode

>>718463147
That would mean the stone is not stationary. You would create momentum which would propel it though the portal (you idiot).
If the stone is stationary it doesn't matter what speed the portal has, the stone still has no momentum.

>>718462956 (OP)
No anon, in the portal question only one side of the portal is moving, not both.

>>718463359
Guess what, "stationary" doesn't exist

>>718463360
ok and, portals are just like a door but both ends are placable

>>718462956 (OP)
The answer is B.

>>718463443
Which changes everything.

It is objectively A.
Instead of thinking vertically as the portal gets slammed into a still object, what if a man jumps (but is otherwise stationary) as a giant wall/cylinder/rectangle with two portals is launched at him? He doesn't zoom out of the opposite direction, he just hops, and lands, gaining no velocity from the portals.

>>718463647
B bros we fucking WON.

>>718463610
>if I change the scenario I get the result I want!

>>718463610
it's no different than a tube
which portals are supposed to be

>>718463572
to (you)

>>718463610
Actually he probably just gets hit by the cylinder, because both portals are blue and closed.

>>718462956 (OP)
But you cocksucker. No matter the actual distance between the two portals the distance you travel between them is 0, they are connected instantly from end to end which your completely retarded attempt at a "test" can not do. The fact that one end of a hole that is instantly next to the other can somehow move independently is what causes the issue with portals in the first place.

>>718463736
different scenario, same principle and logical consistency

why would an object gain velocity passing through a portal just because it's a different direction?

>>718463018
fpbp
/thread

>>718463610
But both ends move at the same time AND in the same direction on that cylinder, what the fuck is wrong with you Afags.

>>718463610
it's B, due to momentum
motion is relative, not absolute

>>718463790
>same principle and logical consistency
It's not lmao
What you are describing is consistent with the principle underlying B
Once you figure out why that is, you will be able to participate in this conversation.

>>718463832
Okay then have only one portal on the cylinder that's ramming the dude and another on a static wall, it's the fucking same thing you stupid nigger. It doesn't change anything. Portals are TUBES.

You guys are stupid. If you conduct the experiment in the way that proves I'm right, that means you were wrong.

>>718463874
Yes, it's the same thing, both result in B

>>718463891
If you think you can conduct a relevant experiment in real life you ARE wrong

>>718463874
Yes that results in him gaining a bit of forward movement, because to move out of a stationary portal he has to MOVE, the moving portal makes him MOVE.

>>718463874
your thinking is correct. Just switch the letter from A to B and you're done

>>718462956 (OP)
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh B bros?????

Afriends, let me ask you, did you ever wonder why B is even an option? What *could* be the reason people would possibly think that would ever happen in the first place? If you don't know, have you considered that, just maybe, something is going over your head?

>>718463443
The question breaks physics you moron
With respect to the object in question the fabric of spacetime around him is simultaneously moving and not. This is why portals cant move with respect to each other.

First, consider this basic, stripped down scenario with just two portals and a cube in a blank void. Quick: what, if anything, is stationary and what is moving? Trick question; you can't answer that of course. Not only is it an impossible question, it's literally *nonsensical*. The word "stationary" has literally no meaning within this featureless white void. All we can observe is that there is *relative* motion between the cube and portals.
Note, also, that this motion is symmetrical: every part of the cube that goes in the orange portal has to appear on the blue side. This is, in fact, the only logical outcome: there is nowhere else for it to go. You may recognise this principle of symmetry as expressed in the game itself, "speedy thing goes in = speedy thing goes out".
Notice something else? Without any frame of reference given, this relative motion is just what we'd expect from portals. It's identical to what happens in the games.

>>718463790
It's not about the direction or the distance. It's the fact that we take one portal as moving and the other as stationary. All these "hoop" and "door" examples have both portals moving in the same way, which is why they produce a result that both Afags and Bfags agree with.

>>718464201
Now, we're going to make the cube "stationary". How? By adding a little background detail on the orange side, in the form of a friendly astronaut floating in the void, moving along with the cube. The cube can therefore be said to be stationary within the astronaut's frame of reference. But what does this actually mean for the cube? As you can see, the relative motion between the cube and the portals remains exactly the same. The astronaut merely being there does not change at all what happens here. Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out.
I won't belabour the point by illustrating it but we could furthermore add more background details that move with the orange portal, or don't move with anything, and then we could say that the portal is stationary, or once again nothing is - depending on what you measure it against. The astronaut and cube could both be moving relative to something else. "Stationary", as you can see, is just a relative measurement that exists in relation to something else. It is not a property of the cube itself, and it does not change the fact that there is motion between the cube and the portal.
You should be able to see where this is going.

>>718464258
Next, we replace our background with a different background detail: namely, the Earth, which is moving at 67,000 mph around the sun, which is going at 514,000 mph through the galaxy, which is moving at 1.3 million mph relative to the cosmic background radiation. But, relative to the cube, the Earth is stationary. So what makes it different from our previous background detail? What makes the Earth anything but another arbitrary reference point to measure the cube's motion against?
Nothing.
You can see that the relative motion remains unchanged. You've been seeing the same thing every time, which is exactly the one thing we know portals to do from the games, and logically the only thing they can do. We don't even have to add background detail to the blue side because it doesn't matter: either the cube moves against the background or it doesn't, but the one thing it necessarily does is move relative to the portal. So, for the cube to be stationary in one frame of reference, the blue portal can't be.

>>718464309
To illustrate that final point, let's finally turn to hula hoops. If we now add another friendly astronaut to the blue side (surprise, it was in space all along) who, once again, moves with the cube, what does he observe? A stationary cube emerging from a portal that's moving away from him (you could add some rocket boosters to the back of the portal to cause a sudden stop once the cube is through, much like a falling hula hoop is suddenly stopped by the Earth - but, of course, this once again wouldn't affect anything, just as the orange portal stopping once the cube is through would not affect anything). So yes, you can create a hula hoop effect with a portal, using the same principle of symmetrical relative motion. It just requires that you do something else than the actual setup of the Portal problem.

>>718464071
B is the ’pretending to be retarded for (You)s’ take
Heres one just for (You)

>>718463874
If he comes out of a static portal, he's moving.

>>718464293
Are you trying to make me angry?

>>718464556
That is exactly what would happen if it was A like you fags say. He couldn't come out of the orange portal without moving.

>>718464556
If he has no velocity, he can't come out of the orange portal.
If he comes out of the orange portal, he has velocity.

>>718464641
No it wouldn't. The fuck. The portal is moving and you jump and the portal moves over you. You appear out the other side. That's the point of A. You don't gain momentum and the portal cannot transfer momentum but if the portal moves and you are in it's way you appear on the other side. You still don't move but the movement of the portal means you appear out of the other portal.
Are you B fags retarded?

>>718464375
So you really don't understand, huh? To you it might as well be "the cube transform into unicorn farts"?

Why B, Anon?

>>718464641
he would come out of the portal moving down, there would be no inherited forward momentum
how you want to collide with the "frame" of the portal could be up for debate though

>>718464723
The first slice of your body "appears" outside the stationary portal. Then it must MOVE out the way for the next, and so on and so forth. All parts of your body must move in order to pass through the portal.

>>718464723
>The portal is moving and you jump and the portal moves over you. You appear out the other side. That's the point of A.
That's LITERALLY fucking B

>>718464723
How the fuck would he be moving out of the orange portal if he has no momentum you nigger?

>>718464802
No it isn't!

>>718464723
>appear
kek

>>718462956 (OP)
if a portal is moving, the universe is moving, it's as shrimple as that

>>718464780
he has to MOVE outside the portal's boundaries for him to get out of it.

>>718464808
The portal is moving you stupid fucking brown jeet faggot nigger! It doesn't confer momentum!

>>718464375
>>718464071
It's B because of Newton's first law of motion.
For it to be A, there has to be a force that arrests the motion of the box as it's coming out of the exit portal.

>>718464854
verbatim that would be "how you collide with the frame"
stop hallucinating beyond that point, it's not relevant

>>718464871
THE ORANGE PORTAL IS STATIONARY, IF BOTH THE MAN AND THE PORTAL IS STATIONARY HOW THE FUCK IS HE MOVING OUT OF IT
LOOK HERE YOU FUCKING CUNT >>718464784

>>718464723
>the portal cannot transfer momentum
but it can redirect existing momentum. Everything has momentum all the time. The portal just points it in a different direction with a certain velocity.

>>718464982
wrong

>>>/wsg/5952270

A STRAIGHT LINE!
*laughter*

>>718465009
im looking forward to reading your argument

>>718462956 (OP)
Why is your hand trembling like that?

>>718464871
use your eyes and study the images
>>718464784
>>718464849

>>718464780
>there would be no inherited forward momentum
Well, you can't escape that. Either he moves with the moving portal, or he moves out of the stationary one. You can't have both - no matter how much your intuition wants to. You need to visualise it, rather than rely on rules of thumb you learnt in high school physics.

>>718464916
That's funny because it's the Afriends who rely on incredulity and fallacies to make their "points"

The cube is not a speedy thing going in, therefore it's not a speedy thing going out.

>>718462956 (OP)
Portals cant move

>>718464293
This is actually correct. 2 portal is just like a doorframe. If you choose to """""being stuck""""" in it, you will. You can just step away from it you know.

>>718464982
This man gets it precisely

>>718465330
Relative to the portal, it is speedy going in so it's speedy going out.

>>718465279
fully extend your shoulder
bend your elbow so it faces forward
walk toward a stationary or moving portal
plunge your arm into the portal, and continue walking till you pass the entire portal with your body

define what happens in your scenario
do NOT hallucinate further

>>718465534
clarification, your body walked beyond the portal, your feet remained on the ground and did not enter the portal, only your arm went in to the portal

>>718463418
>btranny is a globehead
yikes

>>718465330
Speed is relative, ACKCHUALLY

>>718465469
Well they cant move in reality.
Hence the whole theoretical part is nonsense.
If you want an answer to that problem recreate it in game - which has been done.
So there you go.

>>718465534
>>718465596
Why do Afriends always include so much superfluous detail lol
Here's what happens: my arm comes out of the other portal as soon as it goes in, at the exact same relative speed to the portal that it had relative to the portal it went in.

So if I walked towards a stationary portal, that's at the same relative speed as my walking speed relative to Earth. If I walked towards a moving portal, it could be more or less. Then, depending on whether the other portal is also moving relative to the Earth, my arm on the other side could be stationary or not. But it will have the same movement relative to the portal.

Note that nothing other than this can logically happen, because anything else would imply my arm going into the portal faster or slower than it comes out.

>>718465415
The cube doesn't move at all, the portal in question acts as two discrete points in space time linked together non-linearly.
To the naked eye, this appears to function as a "hoop", but I'd liken it more to a slinky, first with the bottom part released so it falls around the object, then the top of it released so the object emerges through the top half of the slinky.
Or in other words, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RtMMupdOC4

>>718465668
>reality
Yeah for the same reason Mickey Mouse can't move in reality

>>718463018
fpbp. This is not a situation that's equivalent to the usual A/B bait shit.

>>718462956 (OP)
Strange, it should be launching off from that based on all the science I've seen posted around here about that subject.

>>718465771
you did not answer the question and chose to hallucinate
disqualified

>>718465842
The paper isn't a magic doorframe that infuses objects that pass through it with momentum like portals are though

>>718463610
You are wrong. Motion is relative.

>>718465831
He can anon.

>>718465668
What did you just see, Lisa?

>ITS A TUBE
>ITS A HOOP
>ITS A DOOR
>ITS A WINDOW
its none of those things you fucking moron
one side of a door cannot move relative to the other side which is the entire premise of the question
a window cannot make an object move relative to itself like portals can

>>718465859
I answered the question precisely. I'm not sure what you want from me or what you hope to prove this way.

What force?

>>718466539
Yeah, what force causes cubes to instantaneously change direction in the games?

>>718466539
the force the portal imparts onto whatever passes through it to change it's momentum

>>718466085
They can not move in reality. Why is that so hard to understand?

>>718466705
What did you just see?